Acceso usuarios
Las tensiones históricas entre Chile y Bolivia son un tema constante en la agenda de la política internacional de ambos países y por cierto de América del Sur. El 1 de octubre de 2018, la Corte Internacional de Justicia falló a favor de Chile en el caso de la demanda marítima y declaró que este país no tenía obligación alguna de negociar una salida soberana al mar para Bolivia, derivado de la pérdida de acceso a las costas y territorios tras la Guerra del Pacífico (1879–1883). Sin embargo, este no era el único pleito por aguas entre los dos países. Detrás de la demanda boliviana, se produjo un pleito sucesivo, pero esta vez, una demanda de Chile contra Bolivia el año 2016. Se trata de las aguas de unos manantiales en el altiplano andino a la altura de la ciudad de Antofagasta de Chile, conocidas con el nombre del Silala, aguas que surgen en Bolivia y que transitan hacia Chile.
La investigación demuestra que el uso de las aguas dulces, y en particular las del Silala, acuífero que une a Chile y Bolivia en la zona del Departamento de Potosí y la Región de Antofagasta en Chile, trasciende la gobernanza del agua y se relaciona con el manejo de la crítica relación histórica entre Chile y Bolivia.
El texto explora el origen del conflicto, las características de estos recursos compartidos, el rol de los organismos internacionales, la presencia de las tensiones y conflictos bilaterales durante el gobierno de Evo Morales, y las implicancias que estas aguas representan para ambos países en el área político–estratégica.
The historical tensions between Chile and Bolivia are a regular topic on the international politics agenda of both countries and all South America. On October 1st of 2018, the International Court of Justice ruled in favor of Chile in the maritime lawsuit proclaiming that this country had no obligation to negotiate a sovereign exit to the sea for Bolivia. This litigation derived from the loss of access to the coasts and territories after the War of the Pacific (1879–1883). However, this was not the only water related conflict between the two countries. Following the ending of the Bolivian lawsuit Chile presented a case against Bolivia which will be the central topic of this article.
This is a case for the spring’s waters located in the Andean highlands at the height of the Chilean city of Antofagasta, known by the name of Silala. These waters arise from a series of springs born in Bolivia that transit by force of gravity, towards Chile. The case, which has been a recurrent subject for more than a century in the border relationship between Chile and Bolivia, was a source of interest amid the Bolivian lawsuit previously presented. Before the litigation was ended, Chile decided to present a lawsuit against Bolivia for the Silala waters conflicts to clarify the obligations of each state upstream (Bolivia) and downstream (Chile). To date the matter is still in court pending a ruling but it seems appropriate to make it known.
This research is sustained from the social sciences because it analyzes an untold case in the studies of international relations in all South America. Despite all the advances in technology currently available, it has not been settled a typification of the nature of these waters that arise in the middle of the Andes. Another point to be made it is that beyond the outcome of the lawsuit, the definition by the International Court of Justice will set a precedent on the matter at a regional level regarding shared water resources. It is important to remember that this is not a lawsuit on borders but on shared resources. Consequently, the result could eventually act as an incentive or deterrent of future litigation in other South American territories.
In that context, freshwater lawsuits in South America take a course of analysis and relevant focus. States are not capable of reaching an agreement. The problem lies less in a field related to water governance and more in a context of a foreign policy dispute. Technically the feud has been raised by Chile before the Court under this latter approach. However, the International Court of Justice could well fail based on the former.
Among the objectives of this work is to confirm that the conflict over the use of the Silala waters expresses the absence of effective mechanisms for the resolution of controversies in the South American region. The argument presented by Karen Mingst sustain that the pressures on water are causing increasing conflicts in the States, which increasingly acquire international dimensions (pp. 484–485). A second objective is to recognize how the increasing judicialization of conflicts between Latin American countries in recent decades exposes a greater problem among States. The failure of integration processes or at least the partial uselessness of multilateralism in the foreign policy of the States requires a deep institutional consideration.
Focusing on the object of study, it is necessary to emphasize that Chile has carried out a foreign policy approach based on respect for international treaties, non–interference in matters of other States and respect for International Law. In this framework Chile has reiterated that the waters of the Silala constitute a river, therefore, an international water resource shared with Bolivia in a basin, which is essential for the supply of some towns but especially for large–scale mining.
Meanwhile Bolivia has gone through a quite different path in the international policy measures. On one hand, and since the rise of Evo Morales to power in 2006, it was insisted based on an independent study by the Bolivian engineer Antonio Bazoberry called ‘The Myth of Silala’ that these waters were a set of spring eyes in which case Bolivia would correspond the 100% of its usufruct even with retroactive effect. From this source the Bolivian Foreign Ministry declare that the Silala constituted a strategic natural resource which means that Chile has used these waters incorrectly. Based on this conclusion Bolivia would have the right to suspend the flow to Chile because the waters are not a river and the Chilean nation would be misusing them. Additionally, in the commemoration of the Day of the Sea on March 23rd of 2016, Bolivia authorities claimed that they would considering suing Chile in a second trial before the International Court of Justice. These acts were considered a threat by Chile, who in June of the same year presented the case at the Court the lawsuit to judge the nature and use of resource.
The article exposes the scope and context that surrounds a conflict that has little scientific literature written in recent years. In this regard, and from the hypothesis that arises, the research shows that the use of freshwater, particularly of the Silala’s waters, an aquifer that joins Chile and Bolivia, transcends water governance. This conflict is mainly related to the handling of the critical historical relationship between Chile and Bolivia, a relation that does not have these waters as the main pillar but rather the ancient maritime claim. This case is a judicialization of foreign policy as a means of conflict resolution. A mechanism that does not contribute to alliances between countries, instead is an evasive alternative due to the absence of relations that in the case of Chile and Bolivia have been interrupted since 1978.
It will be addresses the origin of the conflict, the characteristics of these shared resources, the role of International Organizations, the presence of bilateral tensions and conflicts during the government of Evo Morales and the implications that these waters represent for both countries in this political–strategic territory. In this framework, the research is based on studies of the flow of slopes, aspects of the speeches that surround the dispute based on the press media appearances of both countries, official statements of the governments and complementary bibliography.
